Wikipedia talk:Not The Wikipedia Weekly/Archive 3

'Vodcasting'

which basically means playing around with video - I'm very interesting in examining playfully what's possible here - if you are too, say so, and indicate what kind of experience / ideas / interest you have! (if it's not much, then you'll fit right in!) Privatemusings (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

? Enigma^msg 07:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next episode is listed as April 10. :) Enigma^msg 18:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New episode of Wikivoices :)

Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode 40.--Pharos (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive status

OK, here's where we stand on the archives in the RSS / iTunes version of this podcast feed, which I've updated now to include all episodes I could find sound files for. Here are the missing episodes that remain as unsightly gaps in the archives, to the consternation of obsessive-compulsives like myself (remember the episode of Frasier where he gets all uppity because somebody lost one of the tapes in his complete collection of his radio show?).

14: Lost "Cinco de Mayo" episode
20: Lost mystery episode
25: Another lost mystery episode
27: IRC session (text, not audio)
30: Still another lost mystery episode
39: Video episode

The IRC session was supposedly going to be read out loud by somebody to make it into a podcast. (Would we do it with different people playing the voice roles of the different IRC participants, or just have it all be read by one person? I'd do it myself, but my speaking voice isn't great.) As for the video episode, I know even less about video editing than audio; what format would it have to be converted into in order to make it suitable for iTunes, and what program does this? That leaves four "lost episodes"... does anybody have sound files for them? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing assignments

I hope it's okay that I've created a subpage, Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Wikipedia assignments, for an podcast in planning. If it's not cool to run this as a Wikivoices episode, let me know and I'll move it somewhere else.--ragesoss (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great to me.--Pharos (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Next Skypecast" section

What about if we moved this section to a subpage and transcluded it on the main page? The only reason I suggest it is so that people can watchlist the "next Skypecast" section specifically. I for one know it'd be useful to me, as I've been wanting to participate for months but am always late to the party. Thoughts? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast?

Did it ever happen? One was scheduled for late May. Enigma^msg 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date unlinking bot discussion

There is a community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates. Could you run something about this in the next Signpost? This issue has been rather heated in the past (including a very long arbitration case), but I hope we can gain consensus for this rather limited proposal. The discussion will be open for two weeks. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and the RFC is on the talk page. Thank you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows

Hi when I click on the chatroom link I get: Joining Skype public chat (IM)

Note: this feature is not available in the latest version of Skype for Windows.

Is there a Microsoft friendly link or do I need to wait for my new nonwindows PC? Ϣere SpielChequers 17:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to join, but failing

I'm also trying to join, but failing. Have just got into a chat window, but it says that the host (filll) is offline. I can be skyped at jbmurray2. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it's 3:20pm Pacific and still no joy. Nobody on IRC, either. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have too many people right now and can't add any more - so sorry! Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No problem. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new name

That's all :) Also, have you considered having a second voice channel for overflow? +sj + 11:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joining

Hey all. I'd like to able to contribute in future when the fancy takes me, so I thought I'd try making it work. After many hours, I got Skype working on my Ubuntu laptop, but the browser links are still causing me problems. Is it possible to join in using only in-Skype commands, or am I going to have to learn perl just so as I can make browser pseudo-links work? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know your skype ID and I'll add you to the chat. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic suggestion

I'd be glad to participate in a discussion sometime related to the talk I gave at Wikiconference New York (and hope to give at Wikimania). A link to the video of the talk should be available in the next few days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 45

Anyone know when the recording of last Friday will be up? Polls are now open! Ϣere SpielChequers 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: original editor dropped; new editor didn't have time to get to it for a bit; one of the participants is now making things difficult for all involved. If you're into numerology, episodes 20, 25, and 30 also disappeared, so I suppose some formula that suppresses every Episode that is an even power of 5 or the product of 5 and an even number of primes may be in force. This would make Episode "1" rather suspicious. +sj + 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But episode 14 is also missing; how does this fit the numerology? Episode 27 exists only as text, and episode 39 as video, so neither of them is on the audio RSS feed either. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC review

I've left a message for Sandy and Karanacs about our idea of reviewing an FAC on the podcast. Awadewit (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've agreed. Now we need to recruit a willing volunteer. Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted call for volunteers at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Awadewit (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers

Reviewers

Matthewedwards : Chat 03:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (For reviewing -- I don't have anything FAC-ready at the moment)[reply]
Awadewit (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]
Ϣere SpielChequers 09:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Walsh (talk)
Mitch/HC32 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA nominators

Please sign below and indicate either if you are willing to have one of your FACs reviewed this way and also whether you would join the skype conference call or are just willing to have your article reviewed in a skype session (preference will definitely be given to those who agree to join the call!).

History of the United Kingdom during World War I - I haven't actually nominated as a FAC it yet, because it seems a little unfair to repeatedly make requests of WP:MILHIST at reasonably short intervals, but as that "problem" would be avoided, yes, I'd be happy to have it as a lamb to the slaughter, and indeed participate if 21:00 UTC (or earlier) was available. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 09:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually going to be away for about a week after today, sorry about that. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can schedule the episode for when you return. Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, well I'm back now, and should be okay for whenever everything falls into place. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time

Does 3 pm EST on Sunday, August 16th work for everyone? Awadewit (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9pm GMT? Seems fine with me, FWIW. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the 23rd work for you at the same time? I think we need more time to organize. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, should be fine. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 11:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Board candidates session

What is taking so long to get the audio published? I suspect that the content is being suppressed by some WMF Board and/or Staff member(s) who want to make sure that my counterpoint views are not heard by voters. The election polling window is nearly closed. This session's delay in publication renders it almost worthless to voters. Utterly disappointing. I feel like my time was wasted on an audience of a handful of Board candidates and a few WikiVoices regulars. -- Thekohser 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that the Foundation put their effort into hiding your views, something that would without a doubt kill your election chances. Obviously suggesting that The Cabal is censoring your views has no effect whatsoever. Ironholds (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone update us on the status of Episode 45? There are numerous people who would, at the very least, like to listen to the unedited audio feed. -- Thekohser 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at the open Wikimedia meeting last week when this came up, noone who was present knows what has happened to the audio, and everyone was frustrated by that fact. I was there for the whole session, & there was nothing unusual said... though Domas and Gongora made some interesting comments, which I'd like to hear again. (Domas insists this is because he badly needed sleep :) +sj +

User:Shoemaker's Holiday has the audio file, and he refuses to release the file, even to multiple volunteers who have said they would be willing to edit the feed. Personally, I don't even think the piece needs editing. About 95% of it was straight monologues from the board candidates. A formal request to move the process forward was officially "Resolved" with inaction. This drama surrounding its non-release is really baffling to me. -- Thekohser 16:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To give a bit of evidence, my earliest e-mails to Shoemaker's Holiday were very courteous, and I wished him to get healthy again, see a physician, make his health the first priority, etc. But, after I saw that he was quite well enough to spend many hours laboring on Wikipedia again, I inquired if he could make some time for Episode 45. At that point, I was told:

several people involved have made it clear that it should only be released by official means, not privately. I'm afraid that's the end of this discussion, as I cannot go against the wishes of the other people involved in it to please you.

To which, I did respond that Shoemaker's Holiday was a morally bankrupt cog in the big Wiki machine of unaccountable treachery. That was as "harassing" as my tone ever got with Shoemaker's Holiday. If an apology is needed to release the audio file from Episode 45, I will be happy to provide a public or private apology to him, whichever he prefers. But, at this point, I suspect no amount of apologizing, groveling, or kissing the ring of Shoemaker's Holiday will bring him down off the very pointy ledge he's decided to park himself upon. -- Thekohser 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do think that you piled things on a little thick; calling anybody "morally bankrupt" and involved in "treachery" is rather extreme for the "offense" of being slower to complete sound-editing of a podcast than you'd like, and this podcast is, as far as I know, an unofficial project not actually part of Wikipedia/Wikimedia and done entirely by volunteer labor; nobody has any enforceable obligations with regard to it. "Harassment" is also rather strong language (and something that has been greatly overused in the past), so there are some overreactions on both sides here. I hope, going forward, a system can be devised to get the podcasts published in a timely manner without being able to fall victim to interpersonal conflict. In particular, if election-related interviews get done in the future for board, ArbCom, or other elections, one would hope that they are able to be published while the voting is still in progress. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "being slower to complete sound-editing" was not at all why I questioned Shoemaker's morality, but if you wish to perpetuate that fiction, you're entitled, Dan. -- Thekohser 13:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that a public apology, and putting an end to making any further public comments about this for a couple of weeks, would go a long way towards guaranteeing a release of the audio. +sj + 07:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Editing underway" section

This section looks old and in need of updating. +sj + 21:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoices has officially jumped the shark

This podcast was a nice idea, but it couldn't last... when episodes get held up in petulant bickering, complete with overblown accusations of "harassment" (a popular tactic back in the BADSITES wars), I don't know what reason anybody would have for wanting to participate in it. Besides the episode that's being warred about, there are a number of earlier ones that never saw the light of day either, making unsightly gaps in the archives. I maintain the RSS feed version, but haven't been able to add anything in a long time because even the recent episodes that are online haven't been converted to MP3 form (I did that myself for a while, but I don't think I currently have a sound converter program that wasn't a limited trial version that's expired). *Dan T.* (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to say harassment claims are overblown, you would be well-advised to actually look into the issue. You cannot have seen the e-mails Kohs sent me because you have never even talked to me, so how the hell would you know they're overblown? Next time you're going to pooh-pooh harassment, actually look into the claim before arbitrarily dismissing it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 14:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest we agree to close discussion on recent events and instead discuss future recordings? I stepped in at the last minute for 46 and I'm not too proud of that one - it has gaps because the software I used only recorded 15 minute chunks. But I have different software now and am willing to record and edit some future sessions. If we continue to have two people recording each session we should usually be OK. As for exporting MP3 versions, sorry but I didn't know that was also required. But I'm now downloading some software, so Dan if you could just drop me your email I should soon be able to email you mp3 files for episode 46. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it's a Wikipedia Skype conversation. Calm down, doesn't matter this much. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to see things a little more organized with respect to getting the episodes online in a timely manner, both in the Ogg and MP3/RSS/iTunes versions. I'm willing to help out in this as needed. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin's observation

Thekohser AND Shoemaker's Holiday:

This matter about the audio file is dead and not to be discussed on Wikipedia. This means that

No-one is to complain about the issues regarding this file and
No-one is to complain about what was or was not said in emails, or make accusations of harassment, or anything else frankly.

I understand that both of you feel you have a grievance against the other, and that each feels like the "victim" in this matter. I'm sorry for both of you. However I have spoken with other admins about this and no-one feels much loyalty or sympathy to either of you on this matter. We just want it to stop.

Admin intervention (if it ever comes to that) is likely to be levelled against both of you, for you both are engaging in a disruptive dispute. This would mean sanctions against two editors who are otherwise VERY valuable contributors. Please don't make that necessary. Manning (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a breath

How about... if on the Wikivoices page, the links to how to join a conference (you know, the prominent links up in the blue section?) ACTUALLY WENT TO THE ACTIVE SESSION?!?!? Or, is it the preference of the Wikivoices crew that everything remain in some "stealth" room, where people who don't know how to get there, cannot join? -- Thekohser 21:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are reliability and co-ordination issues with the way Wikivoices operates. If firm and reliable information cannot be given in advance, or there is some reason for a degree of secrecy, perhaps this should be reflected in the descriptions and instructions. I'd rather not have to protect the page of a volunteer project, or rehash specific misadventures, so let's discuss the meta-concerns here and see if we can come up with something accurate and helpful. Skomorokh 22:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Did you know that purportedly the actual Skype chat room is labeled with the terms "stealth" and "kabal"? We really do need to ask what the heck is going on here. Wikivoices has taken on a sort of subversive agenda all its own. I don't know how to get at the template that's governing the Header on this page, plus I don't have the secret link to the correct Skype forum, so it really wasn't in my hands to fix the page -- but the page is clearly misleading and inaccurate. -- Thekohser 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The header is at Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Header. It would be prudent to wait for the participants to chime in before making major changes or assigning sinister motivations to anyone; things can probably be clarified with a little reflection. Skomorokh 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that if Wikivoices is going to invite participation from the community, that accurate links to the Skype conferences should be provided? -- Thekohser 03:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread

As an uninvolved user, I have taken this conflict to WP:ANI, witht he hope of gathering some consensus on this. I am not fully aware of the issue, so I would appreciate if other people were to chime in. Dendodge _T\^C 23:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]